NEW! By Barry Rubin

“There have been many hundreds of books for and against Israel but no volume presenting the essential information about its domestic politics, its society, as well as its cultural life and its economy. This gap has now been filled.”—Walter Laqueur, author of A History of Zionism

"[An] essential resource for readers interested in learning the truth about the Zionist project in the 20th and 21st centuries."—Sol Stern, Commentary

“Offering in-depth perspectives with encyclopedic breadth on the makeup of the Jewish state, focusing only briefly on Israel's struggle for self-preservation. The section "History" provides a masterful summary of Israel's past from its socialist beginnings before independence to the modern struggles with the Iranian regime. . . .”—Publishers Weekly

“A well-written portrait of a vibrant nation at the center of turmoil in the region.”—Jay Freeman, Booklist

"It is indeed just a starting point, but Israel: An Introduction, if disseminated among our universities to the extent it deserves, will at least allow students of the Middle East and of Jewish history to start off on the right foot. A glimpse into the real Israel may do more for the future of U.S.-Israeli relations than any amount of rhetoric ever could."—Daniel Perez, Jewish Voice New York

Written by a leading historian of the Middle East, Israel is organized around six major themes: land and people, history, society, politics, economics, and culture. The only available volume to offer such a complete account, this book is written for general readers and students who may have little background knowledge of this nation or its rich culture.

About Me

Barry Rubin was founder of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center--now the Rubin Center--and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. See the GLORIA/MERIA site at www.rubincenter.org.

Recent Rubin Reports

Sunday, December 30, 2012

The
expression, “With friends like you who needs enemies?” is an apt summary of a
major problem for U.S. foreign policy during Obama's second term.

Here’s the
issue: a number of supposed allies of the United States don’t act as friends.
In fact, they are major headaches, often subverting U.S. goals and interests. But to avoid conflict and, for Obama, to look
successful to the domestic audience, Washington pretends that everything is
fine.

Consider,
for example, Pakistan. The United States has given billions of dollars to that
country in exchange for supposedly helping keeping the lid on Afghanistan—and especially
to ensure the Taliban does not return to power—and to fight terrorism,
especially al-Qaida.

In reality,
Pakistan supports the Taliban, wages a terrorist war on India, and hasn’t been
all that helpful in fighting al-Qaida. It would be interesting to see the U.S.
intelligence document evaluating how high up in Pakistan’s government was their
knowledge that Usama bin Ladin was “hiding out” a few blocks from a Pakistani
military complex. The fact that Pakistan threw into prison a local doctor whose
work helped find bin Ladin indicates which side that regime is on.

Moreover, Pakistan’s
regime is ferociously oppressing the Christian minority, becoming more Islamist,
and giving women the usual treatment existing in such societies. Obama claims
to be protecting women and religious minorities yet lifts not a finger in
Pakistan. And rather than be a force against terrorism, the Pakistani
government has been sponsoring a terrorist war against India.

After the
horrible massacre of civilians in Mumbai, it became clear that the attack was
sponsored and planned by Pakistan using terrorists trained and enjoying safe
haven in Pakistan. India was left helpless as Pakistan simply refused to cooperate
with the investigation or to turn over terrorists from the group responsible.
In short, the United States is massively subsidizing a major sponsor of
international terrorism.

Yet for the
U.S. government to admit that the Pakistani government is more enemy than
friend would make it even more uncooperative and might lead to attacks on the
U.S. embassy and diplomats. Pretending that a regime like
Pakistan's is helpful--and continuing to fork over U.S. taxpayer money to it--is
a huge temptation. Only if the regime in question does something obviously
horrible, and even the bin Ladin case wasn’t sufficient to sour the White House
on Pakistan, will the situation change.

Of course,
some measures have been taken but basically Pakistan isn’t paying for its
behavior. Consequently, it will continue acting in a hostile way, subsidized by
the United States to do so.

The scope of
this problem becomes clearly visible if you add to this list such places as Egypt, Lebanon, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, the Palestinian Authority,
Turkey, Venezuela, Bolivia, and several other countries being in a similar
situation.

Take Egypt for example. The country is now governed by a radical,
anti-American, antisemitic government dedicated to spreading jihad, imposing
Sharia law, and driving U.S. influence from the region. It could be argued that
a mix of carrots and sticks from the United States would moderate the regime’s
behavior. But what if that doesn’t work? The temptation is to continue with the
carrots and forget about the sticks.

Obama says that the “red lines” are that the Cairo regime must adhere
to the peace treaty with Israel; treat women and religious minorities (that is,
Christians) well; and help fight terrorism. But what if it doesn’t? Suppose the Salafist
burn down churches and massacre Christians and the government does not protect
the minority? Suppose a Sharia regime reduces women’s rights to a minimum?
Suppose Egypt declares itself no longer bound by the peace treaty with Israel
or pretty openly arms Hamas in the Gaza Strip for an attack on Israel?

Will Obama be prepared for a conflict, even a confrontation, with
the Arabic-speaking world’s largest country? Would even a President Mitt Romney
do so?

In other words, the argument would be made that it is better to
keep giving money, selling weapons, and shutting up about criticism than to
make a break. Moreover, the president who did so could be accused of getting
the United States into an unnecessary battle and making more enemies. To some
extent, that’s what happened with President George W. Bush.

The possible difference between the two current candidates could
end up looking like this:

Obama version: Although you act as enemies we will believe you are
friends.

Romney version: We know you aren’t really friends but we don’t
have a choice.

In practice, the difference would be that Romney would have a
lower threshold for acting against betrayal than would Obama.

Of course, a large part of the problem with Obama’s policy is that
he not only treated enemies as friends and did not pressure supposed friends
that acted like enemies, he joined them. Thus, Turkey, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia
are arming anti-American Islamist forces in Syria with U.S. intelligence
officers supervising the weapons’ supplying. The only restriction is that the
guns don’t go to groups affiliated with al-Qaida. Otherwise, it doesn’t matter
how extremist they are. In Libya, one of the groups—treated as “good guys”--
supplied with guns by the United States during the civil war there went on to
kill the U.S. ambassador.

Yet given the current situation, especially in the Middle East, a
realistic policy would make the enemies’ list seem too long and discouraging.
In political and diplomatic terms that means the truth will be covered up. The
important question is: How far does a country have to go, how futile and even
counterproductive do the pay-offs have to be, before it is no longer treated as
a friend.

Friday, December 28, 2012

Whatever your view of religion, the Bible is a terrific source for history and political analysis, often in the passages least quoted today. Here are two examples.

1. Statism

When the Israelites asked to have a king, the prophet Samuel (Chapter 8) told them, at divine direction, that a king would make their sons:

“Plow his fields, reap his harvest, and make his weapons and equipment for his chariots. He will take your daughters as perfumers, cooks, and bakers. He will seize your choice fields, vineyards, and olive groves, and give them to his courtiers [crony capitalism!]. He will take a tenth part of your grain and vintage [far lower taxes than today!] and give it to his eunuchs and courtiers [entitlements? Crony capitalism?].”

In short, he would make the people “work for him…and you shall become his slaves. The day will come when you cry out because of the king whom you yourselves have chosen [elections!]; and the Lord will not answer you on that day.”

Was that day November 6, 2012? Seriously, though, the idea that excessive statism is extremely dangerous is hardly a new one, especially in a country that was born by rebelling against a king against whom similar complaints were lodged. Of course, the end of the Book of Judges has some remarkable stories that tell of the dire effects of anarchy with the repeated phrase, there was no king in those days so everyone did what they wanted to do. Finding a balance between too much anarchy and too much statism has been the challenge ever since.

We’d love to have your support. Why not make a tax-deductible donation (instead of giving your money to pay for Senator Harry Reid's Cowboy Poetry Festival and U.S. aid for the Egyptian and Syrian Muslim Brotherhoods) to the GLORIA Center by PayPal:click here.

The basic principles of statecraft aren’t new. You can learn from the Bible that people understood four thousand years ago about things that America's current leaders have forgotten today.

When the two Israelite spies sent to assess Jericho’s defenses, spoke to their informant, Rahab, she told them how Israelite strength, determination, and thus credibility--the people of Jericho had heard how God favored the Israelites--had already determined the outcome of the battle. I know you shall win, she explained, “Because dread of you has fallen upon us, and all the inhabitants of the land are quaking before you.” (Joshua 2)

But after the great Israelite victory at Jericho, Joshua became over-confident and so accepted bad intelligence that only a small force would be needed to take the city of Ai. He sent just one-tenth of his troops. But as a result the Israelites lost that battle. Even though our casualties were only 36 men out of 3000, the troops panicked and ran. It was a self-inflicted defeat.

Joshua understood the danger in this event:

"O Lord, what can I say after Israel has turned tail before its enemies? When the Canaanites and all the inhabitants of the land hear of this, they will turn upon us and wipe out our very name from the earth." (Joshua 7:8-9).

But rather than take responsibility for his error, Joshua or others in the leadership concluded that a man had stolen three items from the looting of Jericho that were supposed to be consecrated for God. That was the equivalent in that time of making a video that insulted a religion. The thief and all of his family were stoned to death.

Well about four thousand years later what do Americans expect is going to happen with incidents like Benghazi, not to mention enthroning America's enemies in Egypt, Tunisia, and perhaps Syria? As everyone in the Middle East understands, shows of weakness—and even worse of self-flagellation, of apology and the loss of self-confidence—only persuade your enemies to hit you harder.

In the Biblical case, the war went much better after the scapegoat was purged. Perhaps having found an explanation for the defeat restored morale. And renewed victories—starting with the conquest of Ai by the entire Israelite army—rebuilt credibility with the enemy and demoralized them.

The United States faces the problem of credibility but it isn’t going to solve the issue by stoning a video-maker but by having a leader who understands the nature of the enemy, that leadership trumps apology, and that America’s enemies may be quaking but mainly with laughter.

Wednesday, December 26, 2012

And they’ve all liked your looks
With great lawyers you have
Discussed lepers and crooks….
You’re very well read
It’s well known

Yet something is happening here
But you don’t know what it is
Do you, Mister Jones?

--Bob Dylan, “Ballad of a Thin Man”

By Barry Rubin

The entertainment director on the ship of fools that constitutes so much mainstream analysis of the Middle East—I refer, of course, to Thomas Friedman—has produced a wonderful paragraph that beautifully characterizes the problem, exquisitely expressing a Western mentality that not only makes it impossible to understand the Middle East but even sets up the question in a way that ensures many people don't even begin to confront the truth.

So perhaps it is worth disassembling. Sound like fun? Let’s go!

The paragraph is from an article entitled, “Egypt - The next India or the next Pakistan?” And that’s the first problem. Analogies are no substitute to understanding the specific reality of a country and culture, its history and balance of forces that shape the local political culture. You don’t understand Egypt by comparing it to India or Pakistan—very different places indeed—but by examining Egypt itself.

Let me first quote the entire paragraph and then deal with it a bit at a time. Here’s the whole thing:

“Yes, democracy matters. But the ruling Muslim Brotherhood needs to understand that democracy is so much more than just winning an election. It is nurturing a culture of inclusion, and of peaceful dialogue, where respect for leaders is earned by surprising opponents with compromises rather than dictates….More than anything, Egypt now needs to develop that kind of culture of dialogue, of peaceful and respectful arguing — it was totally suppressed under Mubarak — rather than rock-throwing, boycotting, conspiracy-mongering and waiting for America to denounce one side or the other, which has characterized too much of the postrevolutionary political scene. Elections without that culture are like a computer without software. It just doesn’t work.”

I will now go a sentence at a time.

“Yes, democracy matters.” It is strangely ironic that suddenly democracy has become the main issue shaping the American debate over the Middle East. When President Jimmy Carter in 1978 called for democracy in the shah’s Iran that call might have played some role in setting off a revolution that didn’t turn out too well. After a hiatus—due in part to that debacle—the democracy issue returned under President George W. Bush. The people who pushed that idea became known as “neoconservatives” and were absolutely loathed, even demonized, by liberals and the left.

Now this idea that democracy would solve the region’s problems was indeed a bad one, having failed in Iran, produced a disaster in the Gaza Strip (where U.S. policymakers didn't object to Hamas running), been (perhaps unfairly) ridiculed in Iraq, and become a deadly joke in Afghanistan. Yet suddenly the left adapted the conception of the man they most hated in the world! And nobody in the mainstream debate even remarked on that rather obvious point!

Thus, we get an Obama policy based on a Bush idea and a concept tried out by Carter. Except while Bush’s approach worked acceptably in Iraq because the extremists were defeated militarily, Obama’s approach helped put the radicals into power in Egypt and will soon do so in Syria.

One would think Friedman would continue by explaining that strategic interests are more important for U.S. policy than formal democracy. Nope. Instead, he assumes that democracy is or should be everyone’s goal:

“But the ruling Muslim Brotherhood needs to understand that democracy is so much more than just winning an election.”

Whenever an article or editorial contains the words “needs to understand” you know that's trouble. For one thing this phrase often means that some Western pipsqueak whose most strenuous activity is hailing a taxi is lecturing men ready to commit mass murder and crush their opponents under a hobnailed boot. By the way, the Muslim Brotherhood is unlikely to heed the advice and will be no worse off for doing so.

Yet this also raises another intriguing issue: Why “must” they do so? Suppose staying in power, establishing a dictatorship, and chopping off various body parts of those who don’t live the way they decree is their goal? Suppose they already know that “democracy is so much more than just winning an election” but couldn’t care less? And what will the columnist, op-ed writer, or editorial scribe do to them if the Muslim Brotherhood doesn't heed his advice? Experience shows these people won't even use mean words in response. What a joke.

Doesn’t Friedman know that Obama’s hero and guru, Turkish Prime Minister Mehdi Erdogan, has said that democracy is like a streetcar and you just have to decide where you want to get off? Hint: You get off as soon as possible after you’ve won the election.

“It [democracy] is nurturing a culture of inclusion, and of peaceful dialogue, where respect for leaders is earned by surprising opponents with compromises rather than dictates.”

At this point I must tell a story I once heard from a former member of a motorcycle gang, though I cannot attest to whether or not it actually happened. There was a really dangerous criminal motorcycle gang (it made Hell’s Angels look like Obama’s Ostriches) and the local police decided something must be done. They picked a young policeman to infiltrate the gang and dressed him accordingly.

The undercover cop met the gang and tried to join. Suspicious, they asked him a question: What is the meaning of these ribbons we wear? The symbolism involved various kinds of murder, rape, and various acts I won’t describe for a family audience but each one had a very specific significance. Unfortunately, the policeman hadn’t been briefed on this and after a long pause he answered, “I thought they were just decorations.” I won’t describe his fate.

That is sort of like Friedman and various others thinking they can teach revolutionaries willing to commit genocide how to play nice. They don't understand the significance of what these radicals say and do. Indeed, they don't understand that what they say--especially in Arabic--is significant at all.

These tough guys aren’t interested in inclusion, political dialogue, or “surprising” opponents by giving them presents under their tree. No. They are interested in seizing state power and exercising total power. They are ready to order others to martyrdom and in some cases to be martyrs themselves. They are ready to deliberately and coolly order what happened in that Connecticut elementary school many times over. The only limit on that behavior is a consideration of whether or not it will help their cause at any specific moment.

They don't care whether the New York Times or some other American newspaper they don't read is going to scold them. In fact, if they do know what's in this mass media they understand that no matter what they do they are more likely to have it explained away rather than criticized.

Shouldn’t we recognize that reality rather than lecture them on playground comportment?

“More than anything, Egypt now needs to develop that kind of culture of dialogue, of peaceful and respectful arguing — it was totally suppressed under Mubarak — rather than rock-throwing, boycotting, conspiracy-mongering and waiting for America to denounce one side or the other, which has characterized too much of the post-revolutionary political scene.”

There's that word "needs" again. Why does Egypt “need” that? One might argue that it needs such a system in order to be a truly democratic society whose top priority at home is increasing living standards and abroad is living in peace with its neighbors. The full answer to that question lies beyond my space limits but briefly: that might not work in Egypt; the people who think it would work lose all of the elections; if you try to implement such a system you are far more likely to be overthrown or face chaos.

Suppose you have no way to solve your country's social and economic problems. It then makes more sense to stir up passionate hatred of "the other"; distract attention from your own failings by blaming foreigners for the problems; and engage in aggression abroad so the masses can blow off steam and get some loot. Ironically, this is the kind of thing that Western radicals claim leaders of their own countries have done. It is amazing that they never seem to notice this is how Arab dictators have repeatedly felt a "need" to do in the past.

Also, whatever Mubarak’s shortcomings, there was a lot more dialogue and peaceful arguing under his reign then in any Islamist state or in Syria and Iraq under radical nationalist regimes. This line of argument that is all too familiar from the left in assuming that pro-American dictators are more brutally repressive than anti-American dictators. Usually, the truth is the opposite.

And then at the end, Friedman admits that the post-revolutionary political scene has not been so great. Should this have been a surprise or wasn’t it painfully obvious back in January 2011 what was going to happen? It was obvious to me and a few others but scarcely anyone in the mainstream media pointed out the consequences. And those who dared to be right are practically blacklisted from those places despite having been correct.

The main Western accomplishment of the last two years has been to move from step one to step two in the mainstream interpretation of what’s going on in the Middle East:

Step one: The Islamists will be moderated by gaining power through elections.

Step two: The Islamists should make themselves become moderate after gaining power through elections because they need to do so.

What is needed is an altogether different approach:

Extremist revolutionaries whose goal is to set up regimes that are supposedly implementing the will of Allah—a will no human can question or alter—and who loathe the West, despise Christians, and want to commit genocide on Jews are not going to be moderated. Nor are they going to follow Western instructions on how they should behave. Nor is democracy their ideal, since they don’t believe at all in governance on the basis of the majority unless the majority agrees with them.

These points are all rather obvious, aren’t they? Yet what we have seen for the last two years is not an attempt to understand these realities but rather a series of obfuscations and rationalizations designed to shore up a mythical world that is increasingly diverging from the situation on the ground.

Lewis Carroll wrote the following dialogue for “Alice in Wonderland”:

Alice: “Do you think I've gone round the bend?"

Charles: "I'm afraid so. You're mad, bonkers, completely off your head. But I'll tell you a secret. All the best people are.”

The problem nowadays is that an insane interpretation of international affairs seems to be a quality defining who “the best people are.” A man has just been appointed secretary of state for exhibiting a particularly virulent case of this malady.

Monday, December 24, 2012

Reality, especially in 2012, is very hard to face. So many hopes dashed; so many bad things happening. So people can be forgiven for taking refuge in wishful thinking. Sometimes, not telling the truth has its value in public affairs, especially when you are looking at a president with four more years in office and no elections ahead of him.

Such is the story now gaining currency in some quarters that President Barack Obama has changed his view of Israel, now wants to get along with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and the two are closely cooperating. If you want to believe that idea it probably does no harm and makes you feel better. Maintaining this fiction may also encourage Obama supporters to think more kindly of Israel.

There is another factor here that should be mentioned. Many people overstated Obama’s active antagonism toward Israel as if he wanted to wipe it out or hurt it in any way possible. Obama dislikes Israel, disregards its strategic interests, and despises Netanyahu. That doesn’t mean, however, that he’s motivated to do much about it.

If, however, you are interested in the actual situation, I would ask this question: What evidence is there of any change at all of Obama's policy toward Israel?

Beyond wishful thinking. Basically two things have happened.

--The U.S. government issued routine statements of support for Israel's battle in Gaza while apparently urging it not go on too long and not include a ground attack. It didn’t go out of its way much on the issue, however, for example not rethinking the president’s love affair with the Turkish Islamist regime despite the fact that its prime minister froths at the mouth with hatred of Israel.

--The U.S. government opposed as it always has the UN’s upgrading the PA's status. The American government realizes that such behavior is a torpedoing of the Oslo accords and peace process of which is was a guarantor. But at the same time:

a) It certainly didn't seem to put any real pressure on European allies who supposedly adore Obama and would be willing to listen to him to vote against the proposal and...

b) There are stories which are not completely confirmed but seem authentic that the White House urged European countries and Canada to give Israel a hard time over the new construction. American officials certainly didn’t assert the absurdity of a situation in which the Palestinian Authority can reject a two-state solution repeatedly and break all of its commitments but Israel is said to destroy peace because of approving some future apartment construction.

So Obama’s great support of Israel consisted mostly of not attacking Israel verbally and maintaining routine administration positions. I am not suggesting that the Obama Administration wanted the General Assembly to give Palestine non-member state status.

It is so hard to get people to step back and apply the same logic they would have used a few years ago! But open your mind for a moment and ask this question:

How is it possible when U.S. policy not only loses the backing of every single European ally on an issue but on an issue of importance to the president and in which they don’t have urgent interests involved? In any other case and with any other president, the mass media and debate would be setting off alarm bells about the tremendous defeat, speaking of incompetence and a terribly weak American position.

After all, America’s allies just threw out twenty-years of a diplomatic process sponsored by the United States.

What importance of it that Obama is personally popular with Europeans when he can’t get them to go along with his goals? Ah, yes, he is in large part personally popular with Europeans because they know he’ll let them do what they want. The two biggest examples supposedly to the contrary in the Middle East—overthrowing Qadhafi in Libya and increasing sanctions on Iran—proved the exact opposite because these were issues where the key European states were demonstrably more hawkish than Obama. He followed them as much or more than their following him.

At present and concerning Israel, there are additional points that could be mentioned as showing the lack of Obama’s support, such as his opposing more sanctions on Iran and taking no action toward the Brotherhood's increasing dictatorship in Egypt. There is not the slightest hint that the administration realizes that its pro-Islamist strategy was a huge mistake. At least these argue against a case for Obama changing course.

So where's the change? I think the specter of a second-term Obama undeterred by a future election is so scary that the flattery is being stepped up. Well, ok, I won’t make any problems. I’ll go along with this and pretend all will be okay except in private conversations like this one in order to brief my readers accurately.

Most obviously, Obama is not pressuring Israel to make more concessions to the Palestinians. As I pointed out two years ago—and as the president clearly stated in 2010, he had concluded that he wasn’t going to make Israel-Palestinian peace. It is the only international issue on which this administration seems to have learned anything.

But with all of the other pressing issues in the region plus the intransigence of the PA, which is still treated as a favored pet by Obama, plus the unwillingness of Arab governments to help him, why should Obama find time for the Israel-Palestinian issue? With all the other stuff going on to argue that advancing toward a comprehensive peace agreement would solve all the other regional problems has become too ludicrous even for the current administration to have as its policy.

What is pro-Israel are events in the region and decisions taken by Israeli leaders. Israel just gave Hamas a beating, intensified despite the terrorist group's bragging by the utter lack of regional (especially Egyptian) material help. A lot of Egyptians aren't quietly accepting Islamist dictatorship; the Egyptian regime is still weak and needs stability to get foreign aid; Syria is still weakened by its civil war; Hizballah is in trouble because of its backing of the Syrian regime and facing increasing opposition within Lebanon; the Sunni Muslim Arabs don't want Iranian influence (though Hamas is happy to take its weapons to shoot at Israel); and Hamas and the PA can never make up.

Yet a president who helps to empower Israel’s worst enemies—who also happen to be America’s worst enemies—cannot be said to be a friend except in the limited areas of continued nice words, especially at pro-Israel events; maintaining aid levels; and ongoing intelligence cooperation.

Perhaps the idea that Obama is now backing Israel is what American Jewish voters who supported him desperately need to believe and those who pursue that line will be richly rewarded.

Or perhaps if we pretend Obama is friendly to Israel now in his second term he and his colleagues will come to believe that themselves. Or perhaps they will reward us by not getting angry and trying to punish Israel. Okay, so let’s go along with this story for a while. But my job is to let you in on what's really happening. Ssh!

Friday, December 21, 2012

I hate to spend time discussing U.S. media coverage of
Israel. It should be clear by now that it is not very good, balanced, accurate, or fair. Yet there are examples which are irresistible
to discuss because they are so revealing of the political as well as media
assumptions made about Israel that so mislead the Western publics and
policymakers.

The Washington Post has a major article explaining that while,
on one hand, the Iron Dome missile defense is a good thing because it blocks
missiles that would otherwise kill and injure Israelis as well as cause damage
it is also a bad thing. Tom Freedman made similar claims. Why?

“For a nation that longs for
normalcy and acceptance, one question being debated here is whether Iron Dome
will motivate Israel’s leaders to pursue peace with the Palestinians and the
wider Arab world or insulate them from having to do so.”

In other words, if a lot more
Israelis were being killed and wounded by attacks then Israel would have more
incentive to make peace with the Palestinians and Arabs. But since they are
only being attacked and their lives paralyzed but not killed, Israel just isn’t
interested in making peace.

And who is debating this idea that only if they are more bloodied will their hearts be softened and they will prefer peace to endless conflict? Supposedly Israelis are saying: "Wow, we wish our leaders tried harder to make peace with the Palestinians. Maybe it's because we are too strong and secure." Well, basically the Post comes up with one person, left-wing author Tom Segev. Nobody is interviewed who ridicules this bizarre thesis.

Just to make the situation completely clear let me be very explicit: In the 1980s and in 1993 at the time of the Oslo agreement many Israelis argued that because Israel was more secure it could take risks and make concessions to try to achieve peace. A number of specific steps, including Israel's unilateral withdrawal from the Gaza Strip, were based on this same stance. Israel could pull out of the Gaza Strip, uproot all of the settlements there, and not suffer any decline in security. That's the historic argument: the more secure Israel was, the more it could offer the Palestinians in the hope that they would make peace. Is that clear?

When a country becomes less secure it must increase its ability to protect itself, including by retaining territory useful for that defense, spending more on military equipment, and not making concessions and taking risks. The only exception is that if people feel certain that such concessions and risks would definitely bring a full response from the other side and thus lead to a secure and lasting peace.

Now even leaving aside the Palestinian Authority's intransigence and desire--clearly visible for the last twelve years--to avoid a compromise two-state solution, Israel also faces the following new regional features:

--Hamas, which constantly attacks Israel and would continue to do so (indeed escalate attacks) if Israel did reach an agreement with the PA.

--An Islamist Egypt whose ruling Muslim Brotherhood group daily speaks of genocide against Israel and Jews, plus not accepting the 30-year-old peace treaty, not to mention the even more extreme Salafists.

--An Islamist-ruled Lebanon, where Hizballah, the ruling group, constantly threatens to attack and also daily calls for Israel's extinction.

--A hostile Turkey whose rulers support Hamas and Hizballah.

--A Syria where radical Islamists seem poised to gain power. They cannot possibly be more anti-Israel than the current regime but they are willing to make the anti-Israel war a higher priority for direct action.

So this is an era where Israel clearly needs to defend itself. Compare this to the early 1990s. Saddam Hussein had been defeated in the 1991 war; the radical Arabs main ally, the USSR, had fallen; America was the sole superpower; the PLO was so weak and depressed that it seemed conceivable it might be pushed into peace because it had no other alternative (in contrast to the contemporary Palestinian Authority which just got recognition as a state and is feeling very confident); and other factors.

That was a moment when Israel could take risks and did so with the Oslo Agreement. And yet, of course, we know--like it or not--that this "peace process" made things worse, another lesson not processed by the hegemonic political forces in much of the West today.

So how do we get from here to demands that Israel must keep doing what has failed and the claim that the weaker is Israel's strategic position the more it can and should make concessions and take risks? Such a stance is just about equivalent to saying that it is a pity that U.S. counterterrorism measures are working because if there were more September 11 type attacks that succeeded the Americans would be nicer to Muslims. Or if the British air force had only not defeated the Luftwaffe perhaps Prime Minister Winston Churchill wouldn't have been so insulated from the need to make peace with the Axis.

Special categories are constantly created to bash Israel. Has the concept of "proportional response"--that if defending yourself you shouldn't do too much--ever been applied to anyone other than Israel? Can you imagine an American journalist writing an article suggesting that if only England got hiT harder by IRA terrorism it would treat the Irish better in Northern Ireland?

What's most infuriating about all of this is not just that Israel has tried so hard to make peace--including risks and concessions--but the precise attacks referred to in the Post article were made possible only because Israel withdrew from the Gaza Strip in an attempt to promote peace!

Yet the essential insanity of the kind of thinking epitomized in this article is shielded when it comes to Israel by the media’s bias and sense that it can get away with any nonsense when it comes to discussing Israel.

Meanwhile, there is some concern by Israeli intelligence officials of a new intifadah on the West Bank. This
would be due to new confidence created by the UN’s decision to make Palestine a
non-member state (the UN’s contribution to peacemaking); a rapprochement
between the Palestinian Authority, which rules the West Bank, and Hamas, which
rules the Gaza Strip; and the Palestinian Authority’s wish to compete with
Hamas in attacking Israel and trying to kill Israelis.

Following the logic of the Washington
Post we should hope that lots of Israelis are killed by terrorists as a way to
pressure those obdurate Israelis to make peace.

The Post article basically
follows the same Palestinian political line that has prevailed since the 1960s:
forget about a negotiated compromise, Israel must be defeated; Israelis made to
suffer. The main goal is to get Israelis to give up altogether and abandon
having a state; the shorter-term goal is to get Israelis to accept a
Palestinian state unconditionally so it can get on with the task of finishing
that job.

Before around 1980, the above
analysis would have been considered a normative Israeli analysis. Between the
1980s and 2000, when there was a rising hope of a compromise peace with the PLO
and its child, the Palestinian Authority, it would have been considered a
right-wing view. Since 2000, however, that assessment—based on evidence and
experience—has again become that of the overwhelming majority across almost all
of the political spectrum.

Internationally, the refusal to face the fact that the Palestinian side is responsible for the failure of peace leads to such bizarre theories and blinds people to the actual situation.And here is the speech by Hamas's leader to mark the organization's twenty-fifth anniversary. See for whom the Washington Post is suggesting that greater military success will lead to Middle East peace. Regarding Friedman's article, here's a response from Dan Margalit.

Tuesday, December 18, 2012

In his article, “The Revolt of Islam in Syria,” Jerusalem Post, December 12, 2012, Jonathan Spyer, senior fellow at the GLORIA Center, points out compelling information about the new Western-backed leadership in Syria.

The bottom line: If this is Syria’s new government then Syria now has an Islamist regime. This is happening with the knowledge and collaboration of the Obama Administration and a number of European governments. It is a catastrophe and one that's taking place due to the deliberate decisions of President Barack Obama and other Western leaders. Even if one rationalizes the Islamist takeover in Egypt as due to internal events, this one is U.S.-made.

As Spyer points out, U.S. and European policy can be summarized as follows:

“To align with and strengthen Muslim Brotherhood-associated elements, while painting Salafi forces as the sole real Islamist danger. At the same time, secular forces are ignored or brushed aside.”

The new regime, recognized by the United States and most European countries, as the legitimate leadership of the Syrian people, is the Syrian National Coalition, which has also established a military council.

Spyer’s detailed evidence for these arguments--much of which comes from raw wire service reports, praise is due to Reuters in this case--is undeniable. And if we know about these things there's no doubt that the highest level of the U.S. government does so as well.

Why is this happening? Because Obama and others believe that they can moderate the Muslim Brotherhood and it will tame the Salafists, despite massive evidence to the contrary. This is the biggest foreign policy blunder of the last century and the cost for it will be high. It should be stressed that such a strategy is totally unnecessary and the alternatives have been ignored, the real moderates are being betrayed.

Here is some of the proof for these assertions:

“To align with and strengthen Muslim Brotherhood-associated elements, while painting Salafi forces as the sole real Islamist danger. At the same time, secular forces are ignored or brushed aside.”

The new regime, recognized by the United States and most European countries, as the legitimate leadership of the Syrian people, is the Syrian National Coalition, which has also established a military council.

Spyer’s detailed evidence for these arguments--much of which comes from raw wire service reports, praise is due to Reuters in this case--is undeniable:

--“The founder of the Free Syrian Army, former Syrian Air Force Colonel Riad Asaad, is notably absent [from the leadership]. General Mustafa al-Sheikh, the first of his rank to defect to the rebels, is also not there. Sheikh is known for his fierce opposition to the Muslim Brotherhood. Hussein Haj Ali, the highest ranking officer to defect so far, was similarly absent.” These men are all anti-Islamists.

--“A Reuters report on the new joint military council calculated that the Muslim Brotherhood and their allies account for about two-thirds of the 263 men who met in Antalya and formed the new body. Salafi commanders are also there.” In other words, the Islamists will get the overwhelming share of weapons provided under U.S. sponsorship, Turkish oversight, and Qatari and Saudi financing. And the United States has not objected to the arming of Salafist super-extremists as long as they aren't affiliated to al-Qaida.

--“The new council is headed by Brigadier Selim Idriss, who is described as a non-ideological military man. But his deputies, Abdel-basset Tawil of Idleb and Abdel-Qader Saleh of Aleppo governate are associated with the Salafi trend.” In other words, there’s a non-Islamist front man for what will be an Islamist-controlled army.

--“The domination by the Muslim Brotherhood of the new military council mirrors the movement’s leading position in the new civilian leadership body – the Syrian National Coalition. The leader of this coalition is Ahmed Mouaz al-Khatib, former Imam of the Umayyad Mosque in Damascus.

“Khatib is closely associated with the Damascus Branch of the Muslim Brotherhood. The leader of the new coalition has a long history of antisemitic, anti-Western and anti-Shia remarks. (He praised Saddam Hussein, for example, for “terrifying the Jews” and wrote an article asking if Facebook was an “American-Israeli intelligence website.”) He is also an admirer of the Qatar-based Muslim Brotherhood preacher Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi.

--“Within the body headed by Khatib, the Muslim Brotherhood dominated Syrian National Council controls around 27 of the 65 seats on the executive body of the new coalition. There are also Islamists and fellow travelers among the non-SNC delegates. The Brotherhood is by far the best organized single body within the coalition. One secular delegate at the first full meeting of the coalition accused the MB of `pushing more of its hawks into the coalition, although it already has half of the seats.’"

Let me add two other points:'

--The U.S. government backed the previous opposition "leadership," the Syrian National Council, which was formed as a result of American initiative operating through Islamist Turkey. The fact that this council had a Muslim Brotherhood majority in the leadership did not deter the Obama Administration from proclaiming it to be the address for support. Only when the council had clearly failed--and despite the fact that months earlier several moderates had resigned complaining about Brotherhood domination--did the U.S. government change strategy to organizing a new, also Muslim Brotherhood dominated group.

--American intelligence agents in southern Turkey supervise the handover of weapons to the rebels. They make no attempt to stop arms from going to the Muslim Brotherhood and the Salafists while they make no attempt to funnel the guns to moderates. The only restriction is that they not go to al-Qaida affiliated Salafists. One day those guns will be used to commit unspeakable atrocities against Christians and other minority groups just as they will be used to install an Islamist regime and kill or intimidate its opponents.

How has the United States handled this threat? Well, it declared one Salafi group off-limits because it is linked to al-Qaida. That’s it.

As Spyer points out, there has been and still is an alternative: for the West to back non-Islamist leaders including liberals, Arab nationalists, and Kurdish nationalist forces. Such a strategy was not pursued either in Egypt or in Tunisia.

-----------------------

The GLORIA Center supplies you with accurate and unique information based on decades of analytical experience, world-wide contacts, and hard work. We need your support for this effort.

So when Syria gets an anti-Western, antisemitic, and anti-democratic (aside from holding elections) regime don’t be surprised. You can read it in the surprised and grudging admissions of the Western mass media a year or two after this regime takes power or you can know about it right now.

This outcome might have been inevitable any way but I don’t think that’s true. A vigorous policy of supplying non- and anti-Islamist forces while doing nothing to help the Brotherhood and Salafist militias plus the formation of a non-Islamist dominated political grouping that would receive Western aid could have produced a very different result.

But Western, and especially Obama Administration, policy is now putting into power yet another anti-Western regime that will oppress its own people and put a high priority on trying to wipe out Israel.